By Andrew Verrijdt
I recently read an article in an important research journal that left me quite perturbed. The article was about how hypnosis can help us channel the wisdom of our ancestors that exists beyond time and space.
The staggering implications of this were too much for me, and I promptly went to bed. But in the morning the article was still there, which troubled me even more (part of me had hoped I’d imagined the whole thing).
In the interests of full disclosure I must admit that I once submitted a piece to this particular journal and was rejected. In defence of the journal I must point out that they mention, at length, that they do not regard the article in question as legitimate research but included it because some people take such ideas very seriously, and thus we should take the time to talk about them.
I understand this point of view but respectfully disagree with it for the simple reason that such articles are bullshit, and that makes them dangerous.
I hope no one is offended by my use of the technical term “bullshit” to describe this particular flavour of nonsense, but no more appropriate word exists. In 1986 the philosopher Harry Frankfurt published a detailed explanation of the term. He said bullshit is different from lie, because before one can lie one must first know the truth.
The bullshit artist is under no such restrictions. They do not care about being truthful, or defending a lie: they are only interested in being convincing. To this end they will use both truth and falsehood in whatever combination suits their purpose, which is why they can be even more dangerous than a liar. Lies are easily disproved. Bullshit needs to first be pruned.
Such it is in the article that first so troubled me. It combines truthful statements from physics (like the idea that matter and energy are in some ways the same thing) with statements that are, ahem, “questionable” (for example the claim that hypnosis can access “past lives”). The resulting sludge is then garnished with the word “quantum” and served to us with a smile as if it made sense.
Well, it doesn’t.
In order to understand the danger of bowing to the “quantum” buzzword it might help to cast our gaze back to the end of the 19th century. At that point electricity was all the rage. It was a mysterious, new thing that seemed to have miraculous powers and quacks were quick to capitalise on it. They sold devices that claimed to cure insomnia, constipation, erectile dysfunction and many other ailments. And when sceptics asked how they worked the quacks responded that it was all due to the wonders of electricity. After all: every organ in the body runs on electricity, so adding more electricity could only be good, right?
As in the article above truth was combined with nonsense to create bullshit, and people lapped it up.
A similar thing happens today with homeopathy. Homeopathy has been repeatedly shown to be no better (or worse) than placebos. But people who don’t know this, or don’t understand how convincing the placebo effect can be, continue to purchase homeopathic “cures” for similar ailments as those mentioned above. Dr Ben Goldacre has devoted his life to debunking this and other forms of medical hokum; there is so much of it about that someone has to.
The problem of bullshit extends far beyond the risk of leaving people sleepy, irregular and flaccid. Earlier this year a professor of alternative medicine at the University of Exeter complained that research into chiropractics was deliberately ignoring negative side effects of the method, including paralysis and even death.
He pointed out that every treatment will get some reports of negative side-effects, if only due to coincidence. So when you read a study on chiropractics (or homeopathy, or anything else) that lists zero negative side-effects then you can be reasonably certain that the researchers are operating unethically.
Or, from my perspective, that they are engaging in bullshit.
The problem only gets larger as the camera pulls back. For almost ten years global warming has been a scientific fact that is not under any significant assault. The evidence supporting it, already bulletproof, continues to grow while the sceptics attacking it only grow more hysterical. They include conspiracy theorists like the late Michael Crichton (who claimed that a cabal of hippies was trying to stifle progress), scientifically illiterate bloggers and bought-and-paid-for industry mouthpieces. None of these groups is worth taking seriously on scientific matters.
But an alarming percentage of the population still believe that global warming is controversial, and they believe this because we have given bullshit a place in our public discussions around these issues. By putting genuine science alongside bullshit we demean the former and embolden the latter.
There is no greater, and no more troubling, case of this than Thabo Mbeki’s approach to HIV/Aids. Mbeki fell under the sway of the Aids denialist movement who hold that ARVs are poisonous, that HIV doesn’t cause Aids and that even though Aids isn’t real they can still cure it, with vitamin pills and a side salad.
The denialists blend truth and lie together into a bullshit smoothie that is hard to separate out. It’s true that ARVs are terrifyingly toxic but they are the only way to prevent HIV from turning into Aids, a disease that kills within a few months. It is likewise true that higher than normal doses of vitamins is recommended for people who are HIV positive but that doesn’t mean that vitamins alone will save you. Magic Johnson has been HIV positive for 20 years and his continued health has been due to a scientifically formulated regimen of medications, not beetroot juice and the African potato.
It is impossible to know how many of our fellow South Africans have been killed by Aids denialism. What we can know is that the number is too high. By providing public space to bullshit we threaten the public’s access to knowledge. Should people be allowed to espouse nonsensical ideas? Of course they should!
That’s what Twitter is for.
But they should not be given space in scientific journals, public policy discussion, advertising billboards or other realms of power. It is admirable that we all try so hard to give both sides of every story.
But that doesn’t work when one of those sides is composed entirely of bullshit.
Andrew Verrijdt is an educational psychologist.
To ignore the scientific research showing homeopathy’s effectiveness does not make it go away. Modern science cannot explain why its effective, but thats because they are not advanced enough yet. The time will come when modern will be able explain why homeopathy is effective.
Enough Said:”Numerous surveys over the past 150 plus years have confirmed that people who seek homeopathic treatment tend to be considerably more educated than those who don’t.”
I can’t help but note the lack of source for this assertion. Any source. Let alone a credible source.
@Andrew Verrijdt
1) “But I am puzzled by the question of why you don’t criticise alternative medicine groups (who also falsifiy research and who are also trying to make money off you)?”
Who says I don’t, but this article is denying the good science done on homeopathy like the average big pharma spin doctor.
2) “But the claim that Big Pharma is manipulating EVERY…” Andrew Verrijdt, you are exaggerating again.
3) “I’m so sorry it’s taken me this long to respond, but I’ve been busy. Doing science.” …Really Andrew Verrijdt !!!..After all your article is titled “No space for bullshit” ..makes you wonder.
@Reducto
I note the above article by Andrew Verrijdt does not contain a list of sources.
However source you want from me despite your sarcasim is: “Rothstein, W. Physicians in the Nineteenth Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972.”
Here is a fully referenced article for your information: “Homeopathy : Europe’s #1 Alternative for Doctors”
http://genierowson.com/blog/homeopathy-europes-1-alternative-for-doctors
>>>
>>>
So, the source for the assertion that: ”
“Numerous surveys over the past 150 plus years have confirmed that people who seek homeopathic treatment tend to be considerably more educated than those who don’t”
Is a book from the 1970s that more than likely would be impossible to track down? That is footnoted in a blog on the internet?
No, really, can you provide me with some solid proof for this?
@Reduco
No source has ever satisfied a denialist. Don’t waste my time. You have no knowledge on the subject except how to troll blogs for your paymaster.
@Reducto – Why not ask Andrew Verridjt who wrote the above article for the list of sources for his assertions, …..let me guess, right wing think tank web sites or so-called ‘scientific papers’ by some medical fundamentalist groups.
Enough Said, your source for the claim that one group is more educated than another group, based on surveys, is a book from the 1970s that is not easily accessible to anyone. That you found cited…on a blog.
If I made a claim that Group X is less educated Group Y, citing as my source a decades old book that is not easily accessible, people would justifiably cry foul. How are they to check these surveys? The methods used?
If you can’t see the problem with that, then I don’t think there is any point discussing this further.
@Reducto
There never was a discussion, just Bullshit by some wingnuts slamming the the real science done on homeopathy.
@Reducto
It would not occur to you to read the book in which this research was documented would it? Because this research was done years ago does not invalidate it, and the book is available to those who want to access it – DUH.
Reducto continued…, you too could be the proud owner of a copy of “Rothstein, W. Physicians in the Nineteenth Century.”,
Order from:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Physicians-Nineteenth-Century-Science/dp/0801844274
Now can you tell me where Andrew Verrijdt sourced the junk-science he trotted out in the above article.
Enough Said, the fact that I have to order it Amazon, for $27, proves the fact it is not easily available. I did a search of both the UCT and Stellenbosch University libraries. The book isn’t there.
I actually doubt you went to verify the source yourself, instead putting the onus on me to fork out $27 for it. You’re the one making the claim, the onus is on you. I’ve already done a search in academic libraries I’ve had access to.
Also, you may note, the blog got the source from doesn’t even mention page numbers.
So…you are taking a blog at its word that this book from the 1970s says Group X is more educated than Group Y, without even telling us where, exactly, the claim is made in the book.
You don’t bother to go verify it yourself, but instead tell me I must buy it on Amazon…for $27.
So not only must I buy the book which you claim, based on a blog but not actually reading the book YOURSELF, makes the claim Group X is more educated than Group Y, I must do the work finding where in said book this claim is made.
Is it really beyond you to see what is wrong with this? Seriously?
@Reducto – So if Stellenbosh and UCT libraries don’t have a specific source, the assertion is not true?
And if a source is not easily available, does that make the fact untrue?
“You don’t bother to go verify it yourself, but instead tell me I must buy it on Amazon…for $27.” Well yes, why not? Read it and prove me wrong. You are not worth me spending $27 on.
@Reducto – nice no-cost easy to access source especially for you “Most clients were highly educated” plus “The use of alternative modes of care such as homeopathy can be understood as attractive and satisfying to educated individuals with chronic problems.” Altern Ther Health Med. 1998 Mar;4(2):60-5. Goldstein MS, Glik D. University of California-Los Angeles, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9682513
I know this will not satisfy you but nothing will, after all you are out to bash homeopathy no matter what.
>>
You made an assertion, based on a blog, that says Book X says Group X is more educated than Group Y, without even citing page numbers! You haven’t even read the book, yet take a blog that does not even cite page numbers at is word. Then tell whoever questions this to go buy the book…that you haven’t even read.
If you can’t grasp what is wrong with that, you are a lost cause.
And concerning the second source:
(1) It does not even claim one group is more educated than another.
(2) You’ve done nothing but quote bald assertions of the clients’ education! What level of education is “highly educated”? Where are the stats?
@Reducto – Follow up yourself if you are so obsessed with your questions. Don’t make your problems mine.
I still will not take Andrew Verrijdts article above seriously. In fact your approach has convinced me even more that people who use homeopathy are not only more educated than those who do not, but far more intelligent.
“In fact your approach has convinced me even more that people who use homeopathy are not only more educated than those who do not, but far more intelligent.”
Uh huh. For your sake, I hope you have no aspirations for a career in academic writing, your low standards for what is a credible source will mean you won’t get far. “Hey, here is an assertion that Group X is more educated than Group Y…with no stats. But this blog says this book says it, so it must be true.”
Fantastic.
@Reducto
I would certainly not aspire to become an academic like you if you are one. Too much like the ‘Sense About Science’ agenda between the lines.
“A leading skeptics organization, Sense about Science, that has been pushing for the re-creation of this Committee is led by a former public relations professional who worked for a PR company that represents many Big Pharma companies. Of additional interest is the fact that other Directors of the Sense about Science organization are a mixture of former or present libertarians, Marxists, and Trotskyists who also, strangely enough, seem to advocate for the GMO industry (ironically, libertarians normally advocate for a “live and let live” philosophy, but in this instance, it seems that they prefer to take choice in medical treatment away from British consumers).
Sense about Science is a registered UK charity despite being a political pressure group. As such they have to divulge their sources of income which they do on their website. Not surprisingly, much of this comes from named pharmaceutical manufacturers.”
http://genierowson.com/blog/homeopathy-europes-1-alternative-for-doctors
Lobbywatch on ‘Sense About Science’
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=151
Sourcewatch on Sense About Science
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Sense_about_Science
Lets face it, there’s ‘No Space for Bullshit’ by Andrew Verrijdt:
http://www.thoughtleader.co…
“I would certainly not aspire to become an academic like you if you are one.”
Being expected to back up claims with actual statistics and evidence rather than bald assertions you picked up from a blog probably puts you off it. I’m somewhat doubtful of your education level, given your approach to sources when asked to back up a serious claim. You wouldn’t get away with that in a first year essay, let alone in academic publishing.
Face it, you proved nothing, you provided no data, only bald assertions. Now you are trying to deflect by throwing a bunch of links at me.
And really, it isn’t up to me to prove you wrong on the education claim, given that you haven’t substantiated it with any actual data.
So hey, deflect to another issue, why don’t you?
Oh, and accuse me of being on someone’s payroll. Great tactic.